Steve Smith's Blog

Musings on Software and the Developer Community

Incenting Behavior

Ayende recently commented on Spolsky's latest Inc. column about how commission schemes typically backfire for companies due to local optimization by those seeking to maximize their commissions.  Both make good points; read them, I'll wait.

As it happens, I was just getting to my notes on this from Lean Software Development, which describe a compensation scheme that I think works very well and that I'll be sure to implement when an opportunity presents itself.  Refer to page 118 if you have the book and wish to follow along...

In discussing Nucor and its ability to motivate its employees to be productive without falling victim to the min/maxing behavior that typically goes along with commission or performance metric schemes, they describe something I find to be quite brilliant.

Nucor avoids the suboptimization of typical measurement systems by basing incentives one level higher than you would expect.  A plant manager is not paid based on his or her plant's productivity, but on the productivity of all plants; workers' incentive pay is based on the productivity of a group of 30 or 40 people.  However, Nucor does not simply reward productivity; it makes sure that everyone has the opportunity and expertise to become more productive.

Things like profit sharing do a reasonable job of providing bonus pay for the overall success of the company, but in any reasonably large organization, the employees most responsible for generating value are pretty far removed from those running things and may not see a direct correspondence between their efforts and their bonus check.  By pushing the measurement closer to the individual worker, but still aggregating it to avoid local suboptimization, the effect would seem to be that the worker really does see a benefit not only of being more productive but also of encouraging coworkers to do the same - a virtuous circle.  And provided the groups involved are large enough, the likelihood (and risks) of a group colluding to defraud the system would be lessened as well (relative to individual bad apples gaming the system).

    kick it on DotNetKicks.com

Monday, 20 October 2008

Comments

 avatar

Anonymous said on 21 Oct 2008 at 8:31 AM

Not a good idea. You will piss of your best employees by doing this, and give no incentive to the worst ones to become better.


ssmith avatar

ssmith said on 21 Oct 2008 at 9:54 AM

Seems to work in the real world in more than one organization. But ok, some anonymous commenter on the Internet disagrees, so it must be a bad idea...(eyes roll)


 avatar

Evan said on 21 Oct 2008 at 3:48 PM

That is a great idea to an important problem. Thank you for sharing it with us!


 avatar

Scott Mitchell said on 29 Oct 2008 at 1:33 AM

So instead of one employee attempting to game the system for his benefit, you get a gaggle of employees conspiring together. :-p

The more I've read about this topic the more I've come to believe that there is no optimal incentive program - you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.


ssmith avatar

ssmith said on 31 Oct 2008 at 5:38 PM

@Scott,

If a gaggle of plant managers want to conspire to improve plant production, I'd say that's a good thing.